www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church? Yes and no.

Of course, since the definitions of primacy and infallibility, are so deeply buried in the dogmatic constitution and since it has only been translated for a century, and not all that easy to find immediately on Google it is understandable how so many continue to so badly misrepresent the teaching.

I applaude your superior research skills, Gordo, and your ability to break complex ideas down into small words that nearly anybody can understand.

Also, just under that list of so-called quotes is this small but not insignificant disclaimer that Alexandr managed to omit. Accidentally of course.



Mary

Well, this is clearly an ex cathedra statement. What does "absolutely necessary for salvation" mean in the context of when Pope Urban wrote this? Did he intend to say "absolutely necessary" only for those who know that the Pope is supreme head of the Church and that it is absolutely necessary to be in submission to him? Or did he just simply mean absolutely necessary for everyone?

Joe

Alexandr,

This is interesting. Do you know if any of these statements by Pope Boniface were made in any kind of official church documents? Encyclicals, bulls, homilies, etc.?

joe

Here is something from the papal Bull that bothers me,

"but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: "The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man" [1 Cor 2:15]."

Does this mean that even if the Pope does err (presumably in some non-infallible teaching), that all Catholics are not allowed to question it and must submit absolutely?

Joe

Not in this case, Joe. I understand how that would strike you at first though.

What this means is that no man may stand in judgment of the pope.

"Judgment" in this case in meant in the context of judge, condemn and execute.

A pope may not be deposed by anyone or any group of persons, no matter who they are. That is really the intent of that statement.

You can't hang the Pope from a lamp post...ostensibly.

Mary

thank God the Spirit of "Unam Sanctam" is no longer pursued by the modern Papacy

AMEN!!!

Mary,

That makes sense, thanks

Joe

You're welcome, Joe. That whole document is a sign of the times and really meant to address the tension between the Imperium and Sacredotum, so it has to be read very carefully and in the political-sacred context of the precise time in which it was written.

One of the common characteristics of both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church is that they insist that individual readings or understandings should not be formally accepted as truth, unless formalized in some fashion through the long tradition of the Church.

All our documents must be examined in light of the question: How has and does the Church understand this?

Mary

Certainly, there have been holy people in the history of the Catholic Church who have criticized the popes of their day - St Catherine of Siena, Jerome Savonarola and others.

Pope Alexander VI was no heretic. Reviewing his dissolute life, however, heresy seems to have been the least of his worries . . .

Can or should there be a mechanism in place to call a pope up on the carpet for leading an immoral life etc.?

Should that not disqualify him from the papacy just as much as heresy?

Alex

That is an interesting proposal. Not new. The kind of thinking that prompts the Church to define the petrine ministry in the most forceful manner.

If I were inclined to agree with this kind of thinking, I would not want to stop at removing flawed men from the papacy, but also from the list of the Apostles, and all flawed men and women from the saints. Any patristic Father who offered a whisper of heterodoxy should be removed and their works obliterated.

I would want a review and removal of all bishops and priests who sin at all, and the automatic excommunication of anyone with habitual sins that last for more than...what?...a year sound fair? I think so. A year it is!

I wonder if we should start over identifying the true Scriptural texts if we can prove that those who codified Scripture ever sinned.

I think we are on to something here!!

Mary

I see your point Mary. On the other hand, we do generally support the notion that Bishops and Priests who are caught in scandalous behavior should be removed from office. Why should it be any different for a patriarch? One wonders what Church history would would be like if scandalously evil church leaders (including Popes) had been removed from office.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I see your point as well and will add to the maelstrom of conflicting "stuff" the fact that there have, in the history of the Church, been popes who were deposed and popes who have resigned. Not all of those popes, who were deposed or who resigned, were false popes, but some were.

Also a deacon, priest or bishop may be removed from the authority to serve publicly or from their benefice, but they remain bishops and priests and deacons by virtue of their ordinations. Deacons priests and bishops are not canonical "offices" in the Church.

The pastoral and papal offices are canonically and properly called offices.

Deposition of a pope is not something to be recommended for the reasons that I outlined above, along with the proscriptions against it in the current dogmatic constitution. Currently a pope may be recommended to retirement, but need not follow the recommendations.

Removal of a priest or bishop should be accomplished through due process and with full regard to the fact that we are all mighty sinners.

Mary

Dear Mary,

Yes indeed, we all sin!

However, there is no comparison between the Apostles et alia and the case of a rather public sinner like Alexander VI - who, from his ordination as a priest, lived with a woman with whom he had four children - and there was also the issue of possible simony with respect to his becoming pope in the first place, although the latter would be very difficult to prove conclusively.

When one of his children died, Savonarola wrote to the pope to tell him that this was God's "wake up" call to him, that he should now repent etc.

The pope took some exception to that and did not rest until Savonarola was killed. It was Pope Julius II who called Savonarola's death a "sin" and wanted to proceed with Savonarola's beatification.

St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine actually drew up crimes for which a pope could be deposed, including "heresy, promoting heresy, seen to be implicated in heresy." He also wrote that Catholics even have the responsibility to oppose any pope who would dare to try and harm or even "destroy the Church."

But today the temptation is to fight the pope for promoting traditional doctrine.

One example of people opposing a bishop is the case in northern Italy where a bishop was against devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

His people not only opposed him, but threw him out of his palace.

When the Vatican examined what happened, it actually said the people had acted "rightly!"

Alex

Alex, this is interesting. If the Pope can fall into heresy, then does that mean that any public pronouncement that the pope intends to be binding on the Church is not really a papal pronouncement if it is deemed heretical? If that is the case, then what good is the doctrine of papal infallibility? After all, one would have to inspect the papal teaching first and then declare that the the teaching was true and, therefore, infallible. This is just a thought I had on this. I suppose I could tie it back into the subject by saying that the complicated nature of Roman Catholic church doctrines like papal infallibility, makes it nearly impossible for someone to knowingly and willingly reject the "truth" by leaving communion with Rome, since it seems that it takes a professional theologian to interpret what many of these doctrines are actually supposed to mean. Or am I wrong? It seems to me that entire debates that we have about the nature of the Church occur because the teachings are often so complicated, nuanced, and subject to misinterpretation. I am the first one to appreciate nuance in thinking, but I wonder if we don't go too far sometimes and define things in such a way as to have to redefine and reinterpret them in order to fit history as our knowledge progresses.

Joe